I wonder…could that be part of why this seems offensive to you; that you respected something that was not worthy of respect?

Brother, don’t attempt to save face. Join us in just admitting your error and walk away from it.

God Bless,

I hear you, I certainly hope they correct all the misrepresentations.

You asked me to be patience. Well, where is your patience with “futurism”?

Why is futurism not allowed time to develop but full preterism, which rests solely on a few abused time texts, is allowed time? Where is your patience?

And who says “futurism” is “inconsistent”? Inconsistent according to what standard? The same full prets that claim that “futurists” are “inconsistent” are the same ones now claiming that Noah loaded up pairs of Gentiles on the Ark? Inconsistent according to what?

The whole inconsistent charge assumes that full prets have exegeted the texts faithfully. Not only is thorough exegesis of the vast majority of Scripture nonexistent, but even the little that they have done has had enough holes poked in it to make even that highly suspect.

You can whine about “futurism” (whatever that is) all you want, but full prets have offered ZILCH in return. Nada. Nothing but cut and paste jobs of “parallel verses” by men who believe that Jesus endorsed polygamy.

It’s a joke. They are living in a fantasy world.

By the way, why are you even here arguing against me? You deny the very definition of full preterism that I have been criticizing – all prophecy was fulfilled – can you name any of the full pret headliners that would not define full preterism in such a way?

Arguing for “ongoing fulfillment” is EXACTLY what got Sam in trouble with Larry, pret compost, and others to begin with.

David, in all honesty, I don’t think you have even begun to understand the problems here.

Now that’s interesting about a new “House Divided” edition. I wonder if they they’re saving-up all their ‘serious’ replies for their new book. Hmmmm…

Sharon :0)

If you say “yes” then FP is in serious logical trouble and is actually completely undermined.

If you say “no” then there is PLENTY of scholarly and exegetical work to rebuke that.

That leaves only one choice. SOMETHING is terribly wrong with FP… terribly wrong! Scary wrong, even.

I’m not aware of any fp exegesis on the books of Isaiah, Leviticus, etc.., that’s where you and Sam were supposed to come in. However, there is plenty of futurist exegesis and it is simply unconvincing often times down right laughable. I believe that’s why were all in the place we are now—nothing seems to make sense. And as I said before your point proves nothing to me, systematic theology takes time to develop.

Oh yeah, and when you get a chance you can send me the futurist link that deals exegetically and scholarly with all the questions that preterists like yourself have raised over the years.

Searching together,

David

Of course, that will get a pass because we all know the horrible persecution our hyperpret brothers are under; what other choices do they have?

It’s sad, and comical.

Here is the “Full Course”, which earns “A Certificate Of Completion.”

1. Matthew
2. Metaphor in the Bible
3. Views of the Rapture
4. Romans – New in Christ
5. The Book of Hebrews
6. 1 Corinthians in Depth
7. New Covenant Eyes
8. 2nd Coming of Christ

lol. Need i say more?

You can not find a single time text that wraps all of prophecy up in ad70…not one. So again, we are not railing or ignoring time texts.

As for the Isaiah, Leviticus, and other summaries…well, prove me wrong and supply me the links. I didn’t say that I disagree with full preterist explanations…I’m saying, THEY DON’T EXIST! If so, where are they? Where has full preterism been thoroughly tested in the Psalms? In Deuteronomy? In Isaiah? Even in our hay day, about as close as we (RCM) got was a large portion of Isaiah, but it was more overview than verse by verse. And NO ONE was even doing that much back then.

So where is it? Simple link will do.

Thanks,
David

It seems, that unless Paradise moved to heaven, Jesus went “down” to Sheol/Hades to “Abraham’s bosom” like, I assume, all other OT saints? Or is my former FP-ism getting in the way? :)

BTW, Jason, your point is well made. It seems to me eerily similar in how your remarks were received by the hyperpreterist community as evidenced by David’s unwarranted assault and the remarks of the TD Jakes supporters in reaction to Dr. James White’s critique of ER2.

It is amazing how quick those in error want to spin the critique of their position to “venom” on the part of their opponent.

God Bless,

Either you agree with Christ’s resurrected and ascended glorified body, flesh and bones, NOW, or you do not. There is no either/or, and becomes gnosticized, whether intentionally or not.

Jason…i mean, David…uh…i mean…

Don’t ignore the really smart dead guys like I did.

” The doctrine of justification, for example, was not invented in Reformation times. Tom Oden (The Justification Reader [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002]) has amply demonstrated how justification was discussed in the patristic period. ”

I’ve read this book and it is good. As a matter of fact, I purchased it because Carson recommended it. Well worth the read.

Jason, you wrote, “The real issue is: MEANING…meaning in light of the whole.”

Amen to that!

David, you wrote, “Be careful my friend how you treat brothers who are honestly searching the scriptures.”

My recommendation is for anyone who is “honestly searching the scriptures” to take a step back before embracing full/hyper preterism because just as Jason’s article points out, there are many, many smart Christians who came before us who we can learn from. The best course of action, I believe, is to take it slow and easy and don’t embrace something like full/hyper preterism without seriously checking out all its ramifications. I too am a former full/hyper preterist and I wish I would have done much, much more study before jumping headlong into it like I now realize I did.

Sharon

It’s funny, because FP only see “contempt” for their movement, their searching of the Scriptures. They don’t bat an eye when the “church”…I mean, the “futurists” are blasted. It’s as if they are the only ones “searching the Scriptures”. It’s en vogue today. If it disagrees with “tradition”, it must be true!

Now, I, for one, find nothing in your response “mean”, “evil” or the like. But watch….this will just be another “example” of Jason “name calling” (no names here); “bullying” (where?); and “banning” (when?).

David could have done a better thing with, “Jason, I hear you. I would like to hear more about certain things. I undertand that people change their minds. With that in mind, what do you do with this passage…..” Instead of , “why contempt?…..”

Sudden 180? No. My 180 was a year and a half process. It started around July 2009. It’s documented.

Wacky FP? All full preterism denies a future bodily return of Christ. So it’s all “wacky”.

“Throwing the baby out with the bath water?” Full preterism takes the baby out and puts it in another tub. If you think full preterism is just limited to “eschatology”, then you are sorely mistaken.

How am i mistreating brothers in what i have said above? Just because you say I am?

Yes, i’ve been wrong before. I was dead wrong in pushing full preterism for 7 years. And God humbled me…big time. Still does. There isn’t a day that goes by where i don’t read Scripture and think, “Man, what was i thinking on that one?” 20 years ago i didn’t believe that Christ was Lord. I was humbled then as well. So do i not speak confidently about the Lordship of Christ now, since i didn’t believe it then? Maybe i should doubt that one too. What’s your point?

Who you really need to be throwing all these questions at are the full preterists. The contempt for “futurists”, which is really just historic Christianity, has gone to the length of even denying their faith as valid by many. They have been accused of creating all the problems we have in “church” today. Their faith has been likened to belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Full preterism is the “sudden 180″ historically. Full preterists are the ones that have thrown the baby out. It is ironic that you would come at me with that when the main point of this article was to demonstrate how historically ignorant and abusive full preterism actually is.

How much full preterist material have you read?

David, just a heads up. This isn’t a site to test the full preterist theory any longer. Sam and i combined have done that for almost 30 years. It doesn’t work. It isn’t biblical. And it is going to be exposed for the “wacky”, faith-destroying theology that it is. That isn’t going to change for me just because you have your own doubts and questions. I’ve already been down that path.

If you can’t handle that, then you might want to move on to a more “friendlier” site. ( :

She is opposing the resurrection of the dead as we see it, being redemptive.

“And it’s right up there with saying that Christ conquered death for us by His *physical* resurrection from *physical* death, which of course leads even “preterists” to physicalize and futurize their own salvation by looking for a “[physically] immortal body at death”.)””

Even to the point of Christ overcoming death as a “non” issue.
She, like many other in the fp camp, have redefined death, to fit their gnosticism.
She is opposing the “physicality” of both bookends, 30 and 70 AD, as issues. She has over-spiritualized them both.

Ken, unless I’m reading this wrong, it seems like Tami is opposing the idea that AD70 was a “redemptive” event. Yet, isn’t that what full/hyper-preterism has been saying for years now? That in AD70 their “redemption” was compete?

Odd. Very odd.

Sharon

Since I do not respond in the typical “chruch” tongue of love-patience-empathy-understanding-compassion, etc… I’m often asked “Why are you here Jerry”

I am here to poke you, to provoke you, to prod you, to anger you, to make you frustrated, to get you to think for yourselves, to incite you, to inspire you, to make you wonder, doubt, question, examine, hope, love, read, study, laugh, chuckle, giggle, snort, hope, fear, listen, hear, consider, challenge, and many other things not listed herein.

But mostly? I’m here because I care enough to be all things to all people. Paul thought that was a pretty good idea, plan, and thing to be.

I am life, and I am an enigma — Jerry William Bowers Jr
End quote.

I care enough to be ALL things to ALL people???? I am an enigma???? oh…brother….the exaltation never stops…soon some will be calling themselves gods…..

http://www.facebook.com/groups/181149025240235/

or I can save myself….

Tami Jelinek “The destruction of the building made with hands (and the vessels of worship contained within it) was merely a *sign* that the heavenly things themselves (Hebrews 9:23–our consciences) had been purified and our entrance into heaven had been opened by a “new and living way” (Hebrews 10:19,20). Sometimes a focus on the physical events of AD 70 misses that point, resulting in many subsequent false dilemmmas being set up (like preterists trying to globalize the physcial events of AD 70 *so that* they can prove that the “eschaton” was universal in its scope, *as if* these physical events in and of themselves were redemptive…it gets pretty crazy. And it’s right up there with saying that Christ conquered death for us by His *physical* resurrection from *physical* death, which of course leads even “preterists” to physicalize and futurize their own salvation by looking for a “[physically] immortal body at death”.)”
groups.yahoo.com/group/SGPList/message/9392

…our consciousness…..very new agey….an assault on the resurrection of the dead. Flat out.

Thanks for posting some of Beale thoughts from his new book. His ideas about Adam’s intended goal ring true to me, that it is the ultimate purpose of God’s design for humanity. Adam failed but the new Adam didn’t. Its awesome to think about how it all played out in history as a lesson for us, yet at the same time to point us to the true Adam, Jesus Christ.

Sharon

Check out this quote from Beale:

“With regard to Adam’s royal position, Gen. 1:26 specifies that Adam was to ‘rule’ not just over the animals in Eden but ‘over all the earth,’ and 1:28 asserts that he is to ‘subdue’ the entire ‘earth,’ a goal that could not have been completed by staying in the confines of the garden. He would begin to rule in the arboreal sacred space partly by subduing the serpent, and then he would continue to fulfill the goal, moving outward and reigning until his rule was extended over the entire earth. This means that there would be a heightened phase of his ruling and a climatic point at which he would fulfill the goal of worldwide dominion.

“There are references to an eschatological Adam figure who will rule over opposition (Pss. 72:4,8-14; 89:19-27) forever (Ps. 72:5-7,17 in comparison to 72:19 and whose throne lasts forever (Ps. 89:27-29,33-37). This rule entails overcoming opposition. Similarly, Dan. 7 prophesies about a ‘Son of Man’ who will replace the rule of the ungodly world kingdom and will rule eternally in an incorruptible kingdom (vv. 13-14), the clear implication being that he and his people will sit in judgment over the evil kingdoms (vv. 16-27). These prophecies foretell an end-time kingdom that will never cease and the victorious and blessed conditions of which will never be reversed.

“Are such blessed conditions a unique response only to postfall sinful opposition, or can one perceive that the goals of these two psalms and of Dan. 7 reflect the original design inherent in Gen. 1-3? The latter appears to be the case. Adam’s inaugurated but losable kingship in the garden also was designed originally to reach a climactic point of irreversibility, so that his reign would never have been lost.”

- A New Testament Biblical Theology, pgs. 35-36, my emphasis

If the fall hadn’t happened… wow… amazing thoughts with deadly ramifications to FP which “consistently” postulates that God doesn’t care about the physical at all… only the spiritual.

I consider Dan’s label of Jason a compliment… and take it as my own… Quantum “what was I thinking” Greg. LOL

Careful, you might get hammered as being too academic.

God Bless,

“Thus, the references to a new Heaven and Earth in Rev. has to do with a new Covenant world (the old covenant world of Genesis 1 ended and the new ushered in), which we currently live in now (since AD 70). Nothing unclean can enter in because the only why in is via Christ, which is per Covenantal. This is why Rev. 22:15 states that outside are the dogs, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers and idolaters. Then there is the fact that per Isa. 65 there is still both death and procreation in the new H&E. Someday Christendom is going to have to deal with these facts. Currently it can’t because of its gnostic obsession with the physical which causes it to look for the physical in both Genesis 1 and Rev. 21.”

lol. Absolutely clueless.

sigh……

Consider 1 Cor 15.26-27 “The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God(1 )has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.” Note that Paul is qouting Psalm 8 here, same as Hebrews 2.8. And, notice that the AORIST is used twice, and once in the perfect for the word “hupostasso” “subjected”. Thus, “for all things He did put (AORIST) under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected (PERFECT), it is evident that He is excepted who did subject (AORIST) the all things to him.” The perspectives are here in that Paul said, “for he must continue to reign until he has put (AORIST SUBJ – not a time reference, but an emphasis on description of action).” And, “When all things are subjected (AOR SUBJ) to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection (AOR) under him, that God may be all in all.”

There is a futurity to this. The same word in 2 Tim 1.10 is used here, “and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who DESTROYED death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel”

Throw in Hebrews 10.12-13: ” But when Christ(1 )had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.” So, what’s going on here? All power is his. He has triumphed over his enemies and made an open show of them. Death is destroyed and he holds the keys of death and life. Yet, on the other, “at present” we do not see all things subjected to God’s People in accordance with Psalm 8.

The problem is solved when we understand the back story of Solomon. Solomon was given “peace from all of his enemies and rest on all sides” and he specifically said that David did NOT have all his enemies under his feet, but Solomon did (1 Kings 5.3-4). So Solomon (“son of David” a clear type of Christ), because God has put all enemies under his feet (v.4), now commences to BUILD THE TEMPLE. However, Solomon’s RULE did not END (9.19). He makes slave labor out the remaining nations, and we see the nations (Ch. 10) binging the wealth of their riches to Jerusalem (10.24-25). Israel came to live at peace.

Likewise, Jesus has had placed under his feet all of his enemies. It’s a done deal (not in AD 70, but at his session at the right hand of the father). He is following the typology outlined with David and Solomon (which Psalm 110 referred to). However, because we are His People, in whom we share as members of his body, shall not also “all enemies” be placed under OUR feet? This is the perspective of the future. They HAVE BEEN placed under HIS feet, they have not yet been entirely destroyed and placed under OUR feet in accordance with Psalm 8. Thus, since they have not yet been entirely placed under OUR feet, it can be said in this sense that Jesus “waits” for his enemies to be placed under his (our) feet.

I will quote Lane again, ““In Jesus we see humanity’s true vocation. In an extraordinary way he fulfills God’s design for all creation and displays what had always been intended for humankind, according to Ps 8.” From Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews 1-8, Volume 47A.

The “already” of eschatology is Jesus. The “not yet” is the progressive work of the Spirit in applying the work of Christ to his People. The goal of this is that we appear in heaven as the man Christ Jesus: glorified children of God, ruling and reigning visibly over all creation with the complete eradication of enimity-causing strife and sin.

You say it has “nothing” to do with “Arminianism or Semi-Pelagianism, or Pelagianism”, but then say it is “more like the OPPOSITE” of these. Well, if it is the opposite of these, then it certainly has something to do with them. Are you suggesting that someone can’t be a full preterist and an arminian, semi-pelagian, or pelagian at the same time?

Eschatology doesn’t operate in a vacuum.

As for closing down the blog…ha…we’re just getting started.

You obviously don’t even know what full preterism is. Preter means ‘past’. Full Preterism means all prophecies have ALREADY been fulfilled. That is, to the full preterist, the church right now is heaven, the only heaven you’ll ever get. Everything’s already fulfilled. That has nothing to do with Arminianism or Semi-Pelagianism, or Pelagianism, but arguably is something more like the OPPOSITE. Please close your blog until you have a clue what you’re even talking about.

I’m very grateful to you all, you’ve been very helpful and supportive of a girl who can’t ignore what she sees but is very confused!

Apparently, Ed swapped theological doomsday nonsense for political doomsday nonsense. Glenn Beck? Seriously?

His rants against Paul are standard, typical, media-driven fare. “Jew hater?” Where does he get that from? “Isolationist?” Sounds like a Beck parrot. Ron Paul has addressed this nonsense a million times over.

“The radical Islamists did not just recently get mad at us because we put boots on the ground on their soil”

Um…Ron Paul never said that. Read his 372p book “A Foreign Policy of Freedom.” House floor speeches going all the way back to ’76. He’s been saying the same darn thing since then and NO ONE listened; hence the mess we are in. It isn’t working. Stevens doesn’t have a clue.

And where’s the BIble in all this? God exalts a nation because….because….we police the world? America is “good”? Really? In what sense? There are signs of judgment all around us.

Too bad Ed missed the rapture.

Why does Jesus tell them to raise their heads because their redemption is drawing near if the coming of god doesnt apply to them in their life time? I’ve been trying to figure this one out see if he’s referring to some of the scripture but the destruction, the signs, the end all seem to flow and then He says that.

I am confused once again.

Proverbs 26
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Currently, I am finding great peace at ignoring my antagonist. I mean, after all, if arguing does no good, and not arguing does no good, then not arguing is better for me at the moment. It is peaceful, and currently, I need a break.

Regarding you assessment: “Error begets error. I don’t think it is insignificant that hyperpreterism flourished in Church of Christ circles”… I made note of that as well. However, if you are implying that Arminianism inevitably leads to liberal theology (heresy), I would, of course, have to disagree. And if you are not implying that, you can ignore what I say here. But often what passes under the label of “Arminianism” is nothing but modern American social religion. Some Calvinists I’ve read like to use this tact to show why they believe Arminianism is a slippery slope leading to liberal theology. But this ignores the fact that the father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, was a Calvinist and that there are still plenty of orthodox Arminians among evangelicals. Most church folk these days don’t know what Arminians nor Calvinists believe. I was one of them until fairly recently.

I would do folks a great disservice also to denounce your Calvinism by saying it is unbiblical or tantamount to pagan fatalism. A thorough understanding of both systems shows they cannot be combined, but also shows the weaknesses and strengths of both systems. It is not predestination VS freewill. Both views have orthodox biblical doctrines of predestination and freewill. It is the presupposition one has that determines whether you fall out a Calvinist or an Arminian. But, again, most folks don’t know that either.

However, i also want it to be clear that i do not think it is enough to merely be ‘anything but a hyperpreterist.’ Error begets error. I don’t think it is insignificant that hyperpreterism flourished in Church of Christ circles. That doesn’t account for all of it, but it certainly explains a great deal.

Likewise, a Classical Dispensationalist could make your same argument; and that view is not much better off than hyperpreterism.

I would do folks a great disservice by just stopping at the points where you and I disagree.

But I must admit, that was not the driving factor for me to cause me to leave full preterism. It was the Covenant Creationism guys that really disturbed me. Allegorizing Genesis 1 leaves the entire historical Christian world asking, “If Genesis 1 is merely ‘covenantal’ then exactly who created the actual trees?” To this day it is amazing to me how the CC guys really cannot see the implications of making such a claim. Asking this simple question over on their forum I have learned their response is summed up as “leave science to the scientists and theology to the theologians – never the two shall mix” and they are OK with that! I’m not. Being an electronics engineer (i.e. a semi-scientist) I need actual answers to “Who created the trees?” Besides, I would like to tell my grandchildren the answer is in the Bible.

When I saw the utter silliness of what they were doing to Genesis 1 and, consequently, the making of the flood of Noah to be local, it really opened my eyes to the fact that all the full preterists I knew are literally all over the board when it comes to classical theology! [gulp]

But the kicker came when I read Sam’s articles on Jesus’ resurrection body determining the nature of resurrection, and not time statements. Add to this the fact that Jesus is STILL a Man (i.e. still has His resurrection body) and my full preterism toppled [CRASH!]

I said all this because I don’t want folks, after reading your testimony to think, “Well, I’m not a Calvinist, so Jason’s issues with full preterism don’t apply to me.” I’ve still not rebuilt my eschatology after it was so effectively toppled, but, I’m seeing that these old guys (church fathers) weren’t so dumb after all. LOL. I had a “healthy” DISrespect for them as a full preterist. But now, I invested in Thomas Oden’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (29 Volumes!) and am being humbled greatly by many of their arguments and reasoning. Sheesh, it makes me wonder if I’ve ever had an original thought (good or bad) on scripture. What a joyous find… what a relief.

I appreciate all that you and Sam are doing, brother. You’ll never know what it means to me. My prayers are that you both succeed greatly in this ministry. Thanks just isn’t a good enough word.

And, hurry up with that book, will ya?

The way I view preterism, if it does exist, is that you have to follow it through fully. The Bible was meant for God’s chosen people at that time, when he talks about the Israelities he means the Israelites, when he talks about the world he means the world known to them (which doesnt include the world as we know it), when he talks about hte nations he means the 12 tribes that came at pentecost and went out to all the nations.

At AD70 Jesus came back, all was fulfilled, the elect went to heaven and that’s that.

The implications mean to me there is no longer a heaven for anyone living beyond AD 70, there is no salvation, and the Bible is God showing us all that he did for his people at that time, with no mention of how he is going to treat us other than thats it we’re dead, anihalated once we die. The earth will continue to go on until it dies out etc.

If this is the case then the entirity of the Scripture makes sense, it’s all wrapped up, all arguments answered (and believe me I came up with many to which my Dad gave solid Biblical responses back), but how does one believe the implications?

If I’m honest I really do not want to believe in FP. What do you think? I can send you via e-mail the questions I posed to my Dad if you like, see what you make of them.

I’m desperate for a sensical, logical, Biblically backed up solid way out of this FP stuff

(Proverbs 29:9-11 ESV)

Please keep in mind that this was written shortly after i left the framework. Since then, there have been additional developments that have confirmed the error of full preterism for me. Once you take the “everything is fulfilled in ad70″ blinders off, your eyes open up more and more to the gymnastics you have to perform on certain texts in order to make it fit; namely, the present incarnation of Christ, his resurrection as a pattern, the destruction of all enemies, the role of creation, and so on.

The issues i brought up above merely got the ball rolling for me.

http://thereignofchrist.com/why-i-left-full-preterism/

Personally, i would not call what happened in ad70 the “second coming”, because “second” is being contrasted to what…the “first coming”, correct? Well, how did he come at “first”? Bodily. So, i reserve the “second coming” language for the future bodily return of Christ, a staple belief of Christianity since the beginning.

Did Christ “visit” them with judgment in ad70? I don’t necessarily have a problem with that language, because every judgment from that time onward is a judgment from Christ, who has inherited the nations. He is currently ruling the nations with a rod of iron and will smash those who do not comply with his rule. He has visited many nations with judgment over the last 2,000 years, and will continue to do so.

So yes, ad70 was a judgment on Israel, but it was not the final judgment, when Christ “delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25 ESV)

Hyperpreterism (full preterism) completely denies this and you end up with the practical atheism that Don Preston ends up with (no more historical judgments), as explained here: http://thereignofchrist.com/don-prestons-deistic-perceptions/

Run from this doctrine.

Talk about “rhetoric” this is rather interesting. In response to an expose I wrote, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5557, pointing out the misrepresentation of Dr. G.K. Beale’s view by McKenzie and Mike Sullivan one of Mike’s colleagues wrote,

“Hi Mike,
I was just laughing this last weekend when I was doing a study and ran across an article on the gathering/resurrection.It wasn’t on the topic I was researching, so I didn’t mark it, but I’ll see if I can retrace my steps. It WAS a good study and maybe Paul T. would benefit from it. It’s pretty obvious he doesn’t have a good grasp on full preterism therefore he’ll never be very successful at trying to refute it.It doesn’t take long for others to notice that too. I have had comments from some of my orthodox friends about it. lol
Dorothy”

Setting aside the fact this sounds like false bravado especially given the fact as pointed out in the link above Mr. Sullivan has concede the concept of resurrection is NOT explicitly taught in Matt 24:30,31. What I think is interesting is the comment regarding alleged orthodox “friends”. The implication of the statement seems to be orthodox friends of the poster have been following the dispute, presumably reading postings over at Perteristblog and Preterist Cosmos. Why I think this is interesting is I wonder what the posters orthodox “friends” think of the RINO’s apparent agreement with Robin who wrote some of the most confused and clearly heretical claims regarding Christ Jesus. Robin wrote,

“I am more interested in how they think that the incarnation added a 2nd (foreign?) nature to God which He apparently didn’t have before. And how it is they think that God could even make man in His own image without having some intimate knowledge of what a human nature is before the incarnation? If this
dual nature must be retained by God above all else, then Jesus must have had that glory with the Father beforehand because that is the glory He returned to!

Rather than suppose about such things, why is it not enough to know that when Christ walked the earth, He did so fully in the form of a man like all others but in connection with the Father as was the purpose with the creation of Adam in the beginning. Does the presence of the Spirit of God make us now have a
dual nature as well? Or is it only the presence of sin that causes such schizophrenia? Because Jesus knew no sin – not then, not now. Therefore the incarnation didn’t require that a ‘new’ nature be given to Him, but that He live a godly life in the flesh within the limits imposed upon this life.

It is only the flesh life in which sin can exist because the quest for sustaining our physical life is innate to our life in this earth and therefore subject to excess. We eat too much, we drink too much, we strive and battle for preeminence, because it is the flesh that drives us. But when the Spririt comes in, a new power comes as well, and the flesh is put in subjection to the Spririt where before it ruled. If such an incarnation creates a new nature in us then it is only because the old must go! One nature is all that is needed – one in which God is the driving force. And Jesus came into this earth with that nature firmly intact! A nature that neither sin nor death could defile, showing us perfectly what a man created in the image of God is supposed to be.

Whether or not Jesus’ body is still composed molecularly of ‘glorified’ cells now, is so not the issue in preterism. It does however seem to be a bit of a stumble for those who want to maintain this ‘dual nature’ teaching. Because like all of their doctrines, it is really about this life only…for them.”

Truly some really strange mixed up thinking going on there. However, given the site is administered by Docetic Dave Green it appears he condones the rank heresy included in Robins written statement. At least if he doesn’t condone the heretical claims in Robin’s “Rant” you would never know it by the protestation he and he colleagues have offered in response. I wonder what the poster’s orthodox “friends” think of the RINO’s total silence in setting Robin straight. Are we to assume based on their silence they agree with Robin?

God Bless,

I think what the issue is with all camps is that little word parousia. It can have many historically applicable situations, including that of 70 AD (the parable of the vineyard and the conditional outcome for Israel as a nation if they disobeyed God). IT is very important I believe to contextualize the parousia into what is actually being discussed, rather than “cookie cutting” – a Vince Krivda term I love so much, that many tend to pigeonhole themselves into thinking that it always deals with the “second coming” of Christ. Like I always try to exclaim to those venturing into something that they seem so sure of, without proper guidance from well grounded teachers of the faith, we can end up into a decision that can have dramatic effects on our faith. Hyper preterism being one of them, to the point that some will even reject the church body altogether. This is most unfortunate, since we are a community of believers, In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity. I believe this is what Christ had hoped for.

I, like Sam and many others, was once an FP, but when I got to some of the most crucial doctrines that define what I believe to be the Christian hope, the door opened up, and the errors were flashing in neon lights.

Any of your thoughts would be greatly appreciated

So, my problem with what you have said is simply this: I am not Jesus. I do not have His discernment about the hearts of those I’m dealing with. He may show me their hearts, but from my experience, that is never to be used against them. So, rather than using the Jesus-style lambasting of the religious and heretics, I believe it is much more becoming of a Christian man to argue from humility. This would include such caution as not calling the opponent a “fool” (i.e. “Thou raca!”). Why? Because, again, I don’t have the Son of God’s perfect discernment.

Seriously, from my ex-friend’s viewpoint, I’m the devil, and he thinks he is doing the body of Christ good by warning others about me. My reaction to his rants? Nothing. I just stopped responding. All my family consequently disowned him… in awe. There are plenty of wonderful folks who are much more humble and not mean than to have to waste our time with the mean ones. You’ll spend more time trying to clear up what they and you have said than you will talking about scripture… “Well, you said that I said that you said this… and really I said this… and you said this… and that makes me a liar?… blah blah blah…” …ad nauseum. No one reading it is benefited and none of it is enjoyable. EVERYBODY thinks they’re right.

Humility is on short supply in most of these doctrinal discussions. I discovered I can be extremely blunt without being rude and name-calling. Truth is blunt… but not rude. Why? Because, again, I cannot discern the true nature of another man’s heart like Jesus did the Pharisees. So, by default, as a mere man, subject to my own passions and lusts, I must be humble when disagreeing with another man, who, like me, is a mere man subject to his own passions and lusts.

Paul’s disagreement with Peter is probably a good example. Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas over Mark is probably not. And Jesus’ rant on the Pharisees? Well, here’s what He has that we most of the time don’t… He genuinely spoke what He spoke to them from a pure heart and the only motivation was to shake their hearts (provoke them) because He loved them and, as His genuine weeping over Jerusalem shows, wanted them to be gathered into the Kingdom.

I seriously doubt my ex-friend spoke the horrible things he said to me out of that kind of heart and with that kind of motive. IMHO he’s just using Jesus’ rant on the Pharisees as an excuse to jump my case… over an eschatalogical disagreement nonetheless.

Just sayin’…

The only qualification that i see is that Grudem says that Adam is neutral “before he had done anything right or wrong in God’s sight” which i guess would be the nanosecond just before he took his first breath.

martin

Would having the ability to Adam to sin be considered “neutral”? I’m thinking when we are glorified we won’t have that ability. Although this cuts against the grain of libertarian free will.

I just don’t understand how Adam could be “neutral”. We are either obeying God or disobeying. How can it be neither? Rocks are neutral.

According to Grudem, moral neutrality is the state of Adam before he had done anything right or wrong:

“But if God merely declared us to be forgiven from our sins, that would not solve our problems entirely, for it would only make us morally neutral before God. We would be in the state that Adam was in before he had done anything right or wrong in God’s sight – he was not guilty before God, but neither had he earned a record of righteousness before God… We must rather move from a point of moral neutrality to a point of having positive righteousness before God, the righteousness of a life of perfect obedience to him.” (Systematic Theology, p.725)

martin

My problem with this, just on the face of it, is: what is “moral neutrality”? There is no such thing as “moral neutrality”.

I think the correct answer is “made.” Abraham was declared righteous by faith. But this was before Christ. When Christ came man could be “saved” or “born from above” or, as Paul puts it, “raised.” Do we not, when accepting Christ as our Savior, become “resurrected” on the inside? Is not our inner man born into the likeness of God by the blood of Christ? If we are merely “declared” righteous, then what advantage is there to be living after Christ’s redemptive work VS living before His work (e.g. the time of Abraham)?

It seems some of the ancient church fathers see this in Genesis 1:26 where it says, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness“, where the “image” is given to us via Christ (i.e. His righteousness) and the other is attained via sanctification, or the renewing of our minds (“likeness”).

Gregory of Nyssa (~AD 335-394) writes, “‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ We possess the one by creation; we acquire the other by free will. In the first structure it is given us to be born in the image of God; by free will there is formed in us the being in the likeness of God…. ‘Let us make man in our image’: Let him possess by creation what is in the image, but let him also become according to the likeness. God has given the power for this. If he had created you also in the likeness, where would your privilege be? Why have you been crowned? And if the Creator had given you everything, how would the kingdom of heaven have opened for you? But it is proper that one part is given you, while the other has been left incomplete: this is so that you might complete it yourself and might be worthy of the reward which comes from God.” Quoted from On the Origin of Man.

I think I’m understanding that quote. Ideas?

Thanks for looking into my question. There does not seem to be a definitive answer in the text, but i agree that the main thing is that we are reckoned righteous. As I mentioned above, I tend to lean toward the Orthodox view if for no other reason that it seems to put even more glory on Christ. I think it lifts Him up even higher that not only did He suffer for my sin, but He kept the Law for me as well. My friend would counter that it diminishes the cross. Different strokes i guess. But, my friend’s genuine concern, however, is staying true to what is explicitly taught in the bible. If it doesn’t say it, he doesn’t want to go there. But, I suspect that there may be quite a few other doctrines that rely on systematic constructs. After all the bible is not a textbook. To make sense of it does require stiching things together at times. At least that’s how i see things.

As to your other question, are we actually “made” righteous? or simply “declared” righteous? I think the correct answer is “declared”. We are being sanctified, but we were declared righteous. My friend is on the same page here as i am.

thanks,
martin